Loading judgment…
Facts
A group of eighteen appeals challenged the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) orders rejecting applications for registration/approval under sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The rejections were primarily on the grounds that applications were 'non-maintainable' or 'premature', without granting a show-cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The lead case involved Shree Chorataria Leova Patidar Seva Samaj.
Held
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions and principles of consistency, found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications as non-maintainable and in not affording a proper hearing. It remanded all applications back to the CIT(E) for *de novo* consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow further submissions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(E) could reject applications for registration/approval under sections 12AB and 80G(5) as 'non-maintainable' or 'premature' without considering their merits. 2. Whether the rejection of applications without issuing a show-cause notice and granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5), 12A, 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B), 80G(5) Third Proviso Clause (b) sub-clause (B)(II), 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER BENCH: 1. This group of eighteen eleven appeals by different assessee(s) are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [for short, “Ld. CIT(E)”] in rejecting applications under section 12AB and/ or 80G(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). Certain fact in all the appeals are common, the respective appellant has raised certain common grounds of appeal, thus, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the facts in case of Shree Chorataria Leova Patidar Seva Samaj, in & 1360/Srt/2024 is treated as lead case. The assessee while challenging the rejection of application of registration under section 12A/12AB has raised following grounds of appeal: “(1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the CIT(Exemption) erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to pass the order in Form 10AD (being the Order appealed against) rejecting the application in Form 10AB filed to grant the fresh permanent registration u/s 12AB of the Act for the renewal of the valid permanent registration granted in Form 10AC on 08.02.2022 for and from the Asst. Year: 2022-23 to 2026-27 purely on mis-conceptual inferences and misreading of the provisions of the law treating the application rejected as non-maintainable and hence, the CIT(E)’s action passing the order in Form 10AD being without jurisdiction, bad in law, perverse, prejudicial, arbitrary, unwarranted of facts and material on records, illegal and invalid, is liable to be quashed or annulled in toto. (2) On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has grievously failed to issue SCN to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for renewal of existing permanent registration of the appellant-trust and therefore, the order passed u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, being in excess of the jurisdiction with the CIT(E) and patently in violation of the rule of audi alteram 3 1359-1360/Srt/2024 with 16 others appeals partem and ex-facie in violation of the relevant provisions under the law, irrational, unfair, and prejudicial, is liable to stuck down. (3) Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
While challenging the rejection of approval under section 80G(5), the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.
1. 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the CIT(Exemption) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Third Proviso Clause (b) sub- clause (B)(II) below section 80G(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to pass order in Form 10AD (being the Order appealed against) rejecting the application for renewal of the existing approval granted under section 80G(5) of the Act granted in Form 10AC on 08.02.2022 for and from the Asst. Year: 2022-23 to 2024-25 purely on mis-conceptual inferences and misreading of the provisions of the law treating the application rejected as non-maintainable and hence, the CIT(E)’s action passing the order in Form 10AD being without jurisdiction, bad in law, perverse, prejudicial, arbitrary, unwarranted of facts and material on records, illegal and invalid, is liable to be quashed or annulled in toto.
2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has grievously failed to issue SCN to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for renewal of existing approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act granted to appellant trust and therefore, the order passed under Third proviso clause (b) of sub-clause (B)(II) below section 80G(5) of the Act, being in excess of the jurisdiction with the CIT(E) and patently in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem and ex-facie in violation of the relevant provisions under the law, irrational, unfair, and prejudicial, is liable to stuck down.
3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
4. At the outset of hearing the learned Authorised Representative (ld.AR) of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by the different assessees are squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in ITAs No.1193 to 1203/Srt/2024 dated 13.02.2025. In all these present appeals the respective 1359-1360/Srt/2024 with 16 others appeals assess-trust have raised exactly same grounds of appeal as raised in ITAs No.1193 to 1203/Srt/2024. The ld AR of the assessee submits that all those appeals were restored back to the file of ld CIT(E) for de novo consideration and to pass order in accordance with law. The ld AR of the assessee made a prayer that specific directions may be given to the ld CIT(E) to allow registration under section 12A/12AB or approval of funds from the date of application as the case may be.
5. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the orders of ld CIT(E). The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that assessee was require to apply for regular approval of fund or for registration of trust, strictly in accordance, the procedure prescribed in this statute and the rules framed thereunder, otherwise it will become chaotic position for consideration of such application.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of ld CIT(E) and the grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal. On carful perusal of the impugned order and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in its both the appeal has raised similar grounds of appeal, the appellant in & 1195/Srt/2024, which we have decided in order dated 13.02.2025. Thus, we find merit in the submissions of the ld AR of the assessee that the grounds of appeal in his appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal dated 13.02.2025, passed in ITAs No.1193 to 1203/Srt/2024, wherein we have passed the following order;
6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of ld. CIT(E) carefully in each of the cases. We find that in all cases, the respective application of assessee-trust either for regular registration under Section 12A/12AB or approval of fund under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. We find that respective applications of assessee-trust were rejected by ld. CIT(E) by taking view that assessee has already holding valid registration or approval and that such 5 1359-1360/Srt/2024 with 16 others appeals application is not maintainable. We find that Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Susamskar Foundation vs. CIT(E) (supra) on identical facts, held that assessee- trust had been granted provisional registration which was valid till assessment year 2026-27 and assessee and applied for final registration before expiry of said period but Commissioner rejected same on ground that application of assessee was premature, since there was no bar to move an application before period of six months from expiry of provisional registration, matter was to be remanded back for consideration of application on merits. Further, Pune Bench of Tribunal in Avileen Education Foundation vs. CIT(E) (supra) also held that where issue of grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) has already been remanded back for de novo adjudication, it would be appropriate to remit issue of grant of approrval under section 80G(5) as well, being consequential, for de novo adjudication. Thus, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, the application of assessee for registration of approval registration under section 12A/12AB is restored back for the de novo consideration and to pass order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before deciding the application afresh, the ld. CIT(E) shall grant reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and further to allow to make further submission to prove the objects of assessee-trust and its activities. The assessee is also directed to file/furnish any other necessary information, if so desired. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in & 1195/SRT/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 1196 to 1197/Srt/2024, 1198 to 1199/Srt/2024, 1200 to 1201/Srt/2024, 1202 to 1203/Srt/2024:
8. In all these appeals, the respective assessee(s) have raised similar grounds of appeal, as raised in or in IT No.1197/SRT/2024, which we have restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) for considering afresh. Therefore, following the principle of consistency of all these appeals are also restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) with similar directions. In the result, grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee(s) in respective appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.”
9. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. Considering the consistent decision of this combination of this bench and following the principles of consistency, both the appeal in & 1360/Srt/2024 is 6 1359-1360/Srt/2024 with 16 others appeals allowed for statistical purpose. The ld CIT(E) is also directed to consider the plea of ld AR of the assessee for allowing registration under section 12A/12AB or approval of funds under section 80G(5) from the date of respective application and to pass order in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal in & 1360/Srt/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.1359-1360/SRT/2024, 1361-1362/Srt/2024, 1374 to 1378/Srt/2024 and 1182 to 1192/Srt/2024:
In all these appeals, the respective assessee(s) have raised similar grounds of appeal, as raised in or in IT No.1197/SRT/2024, which we have restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) for considering afresh. Therefore, following the principle of consistency of all these appeals are also restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) with similar directions. In the result, grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee(s) in respective appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.”
9. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20/02/2025 in open court. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER सूरत / Surat Dated: 20/02/2025 SAMANTA आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से,
सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत 7